US Presidential Election 2020

briany

briany wrote: »

Did nobody who was behind #defundthepolice ever think to themselves, "Hang on! In isolation, this slogan could make us look like a bunch of radical nutters!" Why not #reformthepolice? Everyone can get behind that, even the police themselves.

Anyway, on topic. We need to put any idea of Biden being in cognitive decline to bed. The idea that Trump is in a better mental state than Biden is utterly ludicrous.

No, because anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the English language knows exactly what 'defund' means.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

80% of Democratic voters support Medicare for All.

65% of Independents support it.

Just under 50% of Republicans support it.


The Democratic controlled Congress don't even want to vote on it and the DNC voted against it being on their current election platform.


Don't worry though, they'll get around to it when the 'fire is out'.

Just putting out the fire.

https://twitter.com/MalaikaJabali/status/1293540721463627776

briany

briany wrote: »

Did nobody who was behind #defundthepolice ever think to themselves, "Hang on! In isolation, this slogan could make us look like a bunch of radical nutters!" Why not #reformthepolice? Everyone can get behind that, even the police themselves.

Anyway, on topic. We need to put any idea of Biden being in cognitive decline to bed. The idea that Trump is in a better mental state than Biden is utterly ludicrous.

Why is it one or the other? Both can be, and are, true.

They are both in mental decline. The Joe Biden that debated Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan is long gone. As much as I may have disagreed with him, he was sharp and a good debater.

Biden will be 78 in November. It happens.

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't worry, Democrats are just 'putting out the fire'.

Jokers.

https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/1293689370969616392

The aesthetics of this are very poor and it will look even worse if John ****ing Kasich gets more minutes than her to speak next week.

Yang also not invited to speak despite not really been a firebrand.

TomOnBoard

briany wrote: »

Did nobody who was behind #defundthepolice ever think to themselves, "Hang on! In isolation, this slogan could make us look like a bunch of radical nutters!" Why not #reformthepolice? Everyone can get behind that, even the police themselves.

Anyway, on topic. We need to put any idea of Biden being in cognitive decline to bed. The idea that Trump is in a better mental state than Biden is utterly ludicrous.

Yeah, any number of tags would be more appropriate than #defundthepolice. Something like #reformthepolice, #NewPolicing, etc. would make more sense. However, I'm afraid the defund spin took hold during the George Floyd protests and wasn't countered or explained by established politicians, so for example senior Democrats have become associated with it, despite it being grossly misunderstood and an easy target for Trump's rhetoric. In fact, the senior Dems appear to be reactive rather than proactive in both this message and how it deals with militant Antifa actions. Sooner or later, they're gonna have to stress the need for non-violent protest as distinct from anarchist-influenced thuggery that is over-shadowing legitimate peaceful protesting for fair policing and civil rights.

If you watched Biden/Harris tonight followed by Trump's presser, you'd get a good snapshot of the relative energy and cognitive ability of both candidates for President. While Biden's performance was not in the same league as Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, it was streets ahead of Trump's. Trump wandered, repeated himself, disappeared down rabbit holes and told non-stop lies. Basically, he came across as low-energy, depressed, defeated and his constant whining was pathetic. So, no-one had a MLK "I have a Dream" moment, but I was expecting Trump to just fall over any minute.

Rjd2

Rjd2 wrote: »

The aesthetics of this are very poor and it will look even worse if John ****ing Kasich gets more minutes than her to speak next week.

Yang also not invited to speak despite not really been a firebrand.

Farcical altogether.

Out of current American politicians, I think AOC has the third most amount of followers on social media after Trump and Bernie. She has been front and centre of American politics for the last two years having ousted Joe Crowley who had been in elected office for three decades. A scandal if she is only afforded a minute.

Andrew Yang should 100% be speaking at it too. Himself and Bernie are the only two presidential candidates that had genuinely enthusiastic support.

If the DNC weren't moderate Republicans this is the sort of energy they'd be trying to harness.

TomOnBoard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why is it one or the other? Both can be, and are, true.

They are both in mental decline. The Joe Biden that debated Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan is long gone. As much as I may have disagreed with him, he was sharp and a good debater.

Biden will be 78 in November. It happens.

Yeah, I'd agree that the 2020 Biden is not as sharp as the 2008 Biden. And as you say, "It happens"!

However, the decline in Biden 2008 vs Biden 2020 is many times less than the decline in Trump 2020 vs Trump 2008 (or even Trump 2016) and that must surely be worrying his professional handlers. When I see him on that podium today, I'm reminded of the way Breznev or Czernenko of USSR were wheeled out for Mayday parades in Red Square back in the day.

BonnieSituation

Are we back to the whole "everything isn't perfect so why bother voting at all" crap from people.

Job number one... get rid of Trump.

Everything else follows after that.

Nothing else matters right now other than winning the presidency. Nothing!

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

Farcical altogether.

Out of current American politicians, I think AOC has the third most amount of followers on social media after Trump and Bernie. She has been front and centre of American politics for the last two years having ousted Joe Crowley who had been in elected office for three decades. A scandal if she is only afforded a minute.

Andrew Yang should 100% be speaking at it too. Himself and Bernie are the only two presidential candidates that had genuinely enthusiastic support.

If the DNC weren't moderate Republicans this is the sort of energy they'd be trying to harness.

Thankfully Yang was added Yesterday, it wasn't an error , just the DNC simply did not want him on stage but Yang and others called them out so they back tracked.

A strange exclusion, Yang was the only candidate debating automation , was excellent at speaking to republican voters , popular with young people and represents a key demographic.

Hopefully he gets longer than one minute.:)

Rjd2

Rjd2 wrote: »

Thankfully Yang was added Yesterday, it wasn't an error , just the DNC simply did not want him on stage but Yang and others called them out so they back tracked.

A strange exclusion, Yang was the only candidate debating automation , was excellent at speaking to republican voters , popular with young people and represents a key demographic.

Hopefully he gets longer than one minute.:)

Ah good, glad to hear.

I had my fair share of grievances with Yang but he came at things from a fresh angle.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Are we back to the whole "everything isn't perfect so why bother voting at all" crap from people.

Job number one... get rid of Trump.

Everything else follows after that.

Nothing else matters right now other than winning the presidency. Nothing!

No, we're back to the 'lesser of two evils'.

Hasn't worked out too well for the average American man or woman.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

No, we're back to the 'lesser of two evils'.

Hasn't worked out too well for the average American man or woman.

You do realise a good portion of the country still thinks Trump is the man and if Covid was not an outright hoax, it was manipulated to make him look bad.

In February/March as the concern started to mount with Covid figures escalating and concerns about the state of the US healthcare system and the impact on peoples access to it if they lost their jobs, Bernie Sanders, the only one advocating for a Public Healthcare System got no lift in his primary results.
When I saw that, I said there is no way they are in any way close ready for any sort of a disrupter.

Trump has been such a failure as a President, and if he wins, I genuinely believe he could do anything up to and including inciting genuine armed conflict amongst sectors of US society.
That might sound dramatic, but he implored Governors to use tough armed response on BLM protesters and if he wins, he knows he is out of there in 2024. He won't care who he upsets, what mess he leaves behind, he will go out of his way to do what he wants and I suspect will set all sorts of records for Executive Orders in an attempt to bypass congress.

I know that there will still be problems if Biden wins, and he will not solve all issues in his term, not even close, but what the US needs now is to restore respect for the office.
Getting Trump should be the only focus right now. And hopefully with a bonus that it is forcible enough to prevent Ivanka thinking she is appropriate for the job sometime in the next decade or so.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You do realise a good portion of the country still thinks Trump is the man and if Covid was not an outright hoax, it was manipulated to make him look bad.

In February/March as the concern started to mount with Covid figures escalating and concerns about the state of the US healthcare system and the impact on peoples access to it if they lost their jobs, Bernie Sanders, the only one advocating for a Public Healthcare System got no lift in his primary results.
When I saw that, I said there is no way they are in any way close ready for any sort of a disrupter.

Trump has been such a failure as a President, and if he wins, I genuinely believe he could do anything up to and including inciting genuine armed conflict amongst sectors of US society.
That might sound dramatic, but he implored Governors to use tough armed response on BLM protesters and if he wins, he knows he is out of there in 2024. He won't care who he upsets, what mess he leaves behind, he will go out of his way to do what he wants and I suspect will set all sorts of records for Executive Orders in an attempt to bypass congress.

I know that there will still be problems if Biden wins, and he will not solve all issues in his term, not even close, but what the US needs now is to restore respect for the office.
Getting Trump should be the only focus right now. And hopefully with a bonus that it is forcible enough to prevent Ivanka thinking she is appropriate for the job sometime in the next decade or so.

The fact that there has been 'respect' afforded to the Oval Office is in itself frightening.

As Noam Chomsky said - "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

I understand the argument you're making and it's definitely one of the more sensible ones in this thread, but I think the overall premise is flawed.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that there has been 'respect' afforded to the Oval Office is in itself frightening.

As Noam Chomsky said - "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

I understand the argument you're making and it's definitely one of the more sensible ones in this thread, but I think the overall premise is flawed.

The US has not been at war for something like 16 years out of the 244 years since it's foundation.

And it has a very poor record in terms of instigating violence and shady goings on whether that be in South America, the Middle East, or South East Asia.

But, given it's wealth and desire to be the 'tough guy', it has held the role of 'World Police' to some degree or at least has done so. And, if for no other reason, I suspect that that was indeed useful in quelling conflict in some locations or keeping other players 'honest'.

Maybe I am giving them too much credit. Right now though I think I would still rather see them assume that position, preferably in a kind of decorative way even rather than a vaccum where others decide this is an opportunity to start something serious.

Even aside from the military angle, the US involvement in programs such as WHO, UN, Climate was, at least until recently, a significant advantage in getting some sort of agreement amongst other countries. Even typing that and thinking of the them pulling out of WHO, the Paris Accord and the Iran Nuclear deal is just another reminder of how this guy has driven a train through so many things which took years to create.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

The US has not been at war for something like 16 years out of the 244 years since it's foundation.

And it has a very poor record in terms of instigating violence and shady goings on whether that be in South America, the Middle East, or South East Asia.

But, given it's wealth and desire to be the 'tough guy', it has held the role of 'World Police' to some degree or at least has done so. And, if for no other reason, I suspect that that was indeed useful in quelling conflict in some locations or keeping other players 'honest'.

Maybe I am giving them too much credit. Right now though I think I would still rather see them assume that position, preferably in a kind of decorative way even rather than a vaccum where others decide this is an opportunity to start something serious.

Even aside from the military angle, the US involvement in programs such as WHO, UN, Climate was, at least until recently, a significant advantage in getting some sort of agreement amongst other countries. Even typing that and thinking of the them pulling out of WHO, the Paris Accord and the Iran Nuclear deal is just another reminder of how this guy has driven a train through so many things which took years to create.

Finally, someone in this thread that I disagree with but will put together a reasonable argument.

Pulling them out of the Paris Accord and Iran Deal was obviously a disaster but I think the world is in a position whereby the US doing such a thing is not the catastrophe it once was.

The US is an empire on the wane. Biden/Harris is not going to rectify that. As I said earlier, Obama is more progressive than both yet we ended up with Trump.

The American Empire is showing all the signs of all previous empires in decline.

everlast75

Sometimes i yearn for 2008. The GOP oblige. Birtherism is back...

https://twitter.com/DrJohnEastman/status/1293541246489649154?s=19

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Finally, someone in this thread that I disagree with but will put together a reasonable argument.

Pulling them out of the Paris Accord and Iran Deal was obviously a disaster but I think the world is in a position whereby the US doing such a thing is not the catastrophe it once was.

The US is an empire on the wane. Biden/Harris is not going to rectify that. As I said earlier, Obama is more progressive than both yet we ended up with Trump.

The American Empire is showing all the signs of all previous empires in decline.

A point made very bluntly in this article.

Personally, I have no desire for the US to be top dog. I would sooner see strong proactive UN and EU assemblies to be taking the lead. But, it is no harm to have the biggest dog in a fight on your side. Hopefully we will not need to find out just how important.

Tell me how

everlast75 wrote: »

Sometimes i yearn for 2008. The GOP oblige. Birtherism is back...

Any time someone mentions the 'birther' movement what comes to mind for me is just how absolutely squeaky clean Obama was that that was all they could throw at him. The only other thing I think which came close to being controversial was a connection with a pastor who made some comments which drew ire.

When you think of accusations of fraud, bankruptcy, lying, cheating, sexual assualt, dementia, private email use, sex trafficing, nepotism, infidelity, inappropriate comments, collusion with other governments and God knows what else which have been relevant when discussing other candidates, and given that the motivation to prevent Obama being the first Black President would have been quite high in certain areas, they must have really made an effort to find something. They had to go all the way back to a time when he couldn't speak to try to find something that would stick.

dwayneshintzy

everlast75 wrote: »

Well, would you look at this. Apparently, using the W word comes from the top (and by that, i mean bottom)

https://twitter.com/TrumpsAlert/status/1293651227444539393?s=19

Tweet has been deleted.....what was it?

everlast75

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Tweet has been deleted.....what was it?

I deleted my post because the tweet wasn't showing. It was deleted.

I screen grabbed it. Hope it works

Tell me how

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Tweet has been deleted.....what was it?

If you click in to it the replies, you can see it.

I'll try posting a link.

That is a great screen grab, but I fail to see how it helps working class Americans.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is a great screen grab, but I fail to see how it helps working class Americans.

That's a great post, but i fail to see how that is relevant to the disgusting tweet.

pixelburp

No number of isolated, context free tweets are going to "prove" Harris as a bad or unpopular candidate; where polls go from here will - especially around the time of debates. Only thing tweets show is that the Purity Test applied to democrats is alive and well, as are the various spurned Bernie supporters. I guess the whole "Democrats balls up again" narrative is more enticing than "Democrats pick obvious choice" for a position traditionally irrelevant to every Presidential campaign, bar occasional demographic convenience (such as Pence as a sop to the Christian Conservatives) .

I'm on record here as saying Biden's VP pick may inherit the throne so not like I myself haven't interpreted great importance in the pick, but again, to paraphrase Quin_Dub, you can't plan renovation while the house is still burning down. What little I've seen of Biden's portfolio has looked solid and boilerplate - but swapping one transformative movement for another would just hasten the country's spiral into anarchy.

Hermy

Tell me how wrote: »

I know that there will still be problems if Biden wins, and he will not solve all issues in his term, not even close, but what the US needs now is to restore respect for the office.

Can I ask what are the main problems if Biden wins?

I'm asking out of ignorance - not dissent.

duploelabs

Hermy wrote: »

Can I ask what are the main problems if Biden wins?

I'm asking out of ignorance - not dissent.

Problems with what Trump has left the state of affairs I think is what they mean, not problems that the Biden administration will bring with them. The former is extensive

Quin_Dub

Hermy wrote: »

Can I ask what are the main problems if Biden wins?

I'm asking out of ignorance - not dissent.

duploelabs wrote: »

Problems with what Trump has left the state of affairs I think is what they mean, not problems that the Biden administration will bring with them. The former is extensive

The main argument against Biden by those on the left is that he is far too much of an Old School Corporatist Democrat , beholden to big business and that he would be unlikely to change the overall direction of the US all that much. Insofar as things like the Wealth divide and Society in general go.

That's perhaps not an wholly unfair assessment , although he has committed to bringing in some key "Socialist" (which are really not socialist at all anywhere outside the US) policies like increasing taxes on the wealthy - even if the threshold for "wealthy" is $400k p.a. , which are steps in the right direction.

However , given how far Trump was pulled the US to the right and towards Oligarchy with his tax cuts and deregulation , "Standard Issue Democrat" will actually pull the US back towards the left quite significantly relatively speaking.

The Arguments from the right about Biden are Standard Issue GOP "Left wing Socialist Boogeyman" stuff.

He's going to take their Guns , Outlaw Religion and Murder babies.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is it one or the other? Both can be, and are, true.

They are both in mental decline. The Joe Biden that debated Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan is long gone. As much as I may have disagreed with him, he was sharp and a good debater.

Biden will be 78 in November. It happens.

You know as well as I do that when Biden's detractors speak of him being in cognitive decline, they're not saying it in the sense of him not being as sharp as when he was 30. No 70+ year old is, so that type of cognitive decline is a moot point in a presidential race where both major contestants are over that mark.

The insinuation is instead about being senile or having dementia such that he's not fit for office, and furthermore that this is being carefully stage-managed by the Democratic party. Perhaps 'Sleepy Joe' doesn't even realise he's running for president, and aides are telling him to read the words on the teleprompter and later they'll bring him a nice warm bowl of soup and put on Matlock.

But in actual fact, no, Biden was able to hold his own in the primary debates, after a shaky start. Bernie supporters said much the same as Trump supporters are doing now - "Wait 'til it's one on one!". That didn't really go according to plan, though. Meanwhile, Trump makes a blithering idiot out of himself in every unscripted interview he does, as well as sometimes when his teleprompter malfunctions, like when he said the Revolutionary Army took over airports. :pac:.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

No, we're back to the 'lesser of two evils'.

Hasn't worked out too well for the average American man or woman.

What do you mean "back to?

Biden has been the presumptive nominee for months.

I just find your reaction to Harris' nomination as weird and OTT.

It's an exact re-run of Bernie supporters attitudes in 2016 which cost Clinton the election and gave us the dumpster fire we've had since then.

Now that Bernie is onboard with Biden we have to find an new angle, oh yes, AOC getting a minute to speak at a virtual conference is now such an affront that we will kick and scream about it and stay home in november because we didn't get what we want!

briany

briany wrote: »

You know as well as I do that when Biden's detractors speak of him being in cognitive decline, they're not saying it in the sense of him not being as sharp as when he was 30. No 70+ year old is, so that type of cognitive decline is a moot point in a presidential race where both major contestants are over that mark.

The insinuation is instead about being senile or having dementia such that he's not fit for office, and furthermore that this is being carefully stage-managed by the Democratic party. Perhaps 'Sleepy Joe' doesn't even realise he's running for president, and aides are telling him to read the words on the teleprompter and later they'll bring him a nice warm bowl of soup and put on Matlock.

But in actual fact, no, Biden was able to hold his own in the primary debates, after a shaky start. Bernie supporters said much the same as Trump supporters are doing now - "Wait 'til it's one on one!". That didn't really go according to plan, though. Meanwhile, Trump makes a blithering idiot out of himself in every unscripted interview he does, as well as sometimes when his teleprompter malfunctions, like when he said the Revolutionary Army took over airports. :pac:.

briany wrote: »

Did nobody who was behind #defundthepolice ever think to themselves, "Hang on! In isolation, this slogan could make us look like a bunch of radical nutters!" Why not #reformthepolice? Everyone can get behind that, even the police themselves.

Anyway, on topic. We need to put any idea of Biden being in cognitive decline to bed. The idea that Trump is in a better mental state than Biden is utterly ludicrous.

I'm simply quoting you. You said that

"We need to put any idea of Biden being in cognitive decline to bed."

Yet you've just admitted that it's normal for 70+ year olds to be in cognitive decline.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What do you mean "back to?

Biden has been the presumptive nominee for months.

I just find your reaction to Harris' nomination as weird and OTT.

It's an exact re-run of Bernie supporters attitudes in 2016 which cost Clinton the election and gave us the dumpster fire we've had since then.

Now that Bernie is onboard with Biden we have to find an new angle, oh yes, AOC getting a minute to speak at a virtual conference is now such an affront that we will kick and scream about it and stay home in november because we didn't get what we want!

The neo-liberalism of Clinton and Obama which didn't stray very far from the Bush years.

The left in America have no voice. For a lot of them Bernie was a compromise. Bernie in Ireland would fit in with the Social Democrats yet in America he's viewed as a commie.

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The main argument against Biden by those on the left is that he is far too much of an Old School Corporatist Democrat , beholden to big business and that he would be unlikely to change the overall direction of the US all that much. Insofar as things like the Wealth divide and Society in general go.

That's perhaps not an wholly unfair assessment , although he has committed to bringing in some key "Socialist" (which are really not socialist at all anywhere outside the US) policies like increasing taxes on the wealthy - even if the threshold for "wealthy" is $400k p.a. , which are steps in the right direction.

However , given how far Trump was pulled the US to the right and towards Oligarchy with his tax cuts and deregulation , "Standard Issue Democrat" will actually pull the US back towards the left quite significantly relatively speaking.

The Arguments from the right about Biden are Standard Issue GOP "Left wing Socialist Boogeyman" stuff.

He's going to take their Guns , Outlaw Religion and Murder babies.

Yeah but if those on the left get the hump over Biden being an old school democrat and don't vote for him then they get four more years of trump. They'll be waiting a while for the perfect candidate so they need to get their heads out of the clouds and hold their noses if needs be. Biden to me is like you doing emergency stabilisation on a building that's in danger of collapsing while kamala Harris is the permanent fix from the issue. I'd say on social issues I'd be more left of centre(whatever scale you want to use) but at times those of the left are their own worst enemies.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm simply quoting you. You said that

"We need to put any idea of Biden being in cognitive decline to bed."

Yet you've just admitted that it's normal for 70+ year olds to be in cognitive decline.

Well, Yes sort of - at that age people are in "everything" decline not Cognitive decline.

Does that mean it's automatically a disqualifier? No of course not.

As the linked article above says - Just like you can't walk/run as fast at 75 as you could at 35 , equally your brain slows down too.

But - It's not necessarily a problem

There is a significant difference between "Cognitive Aging " and Dementia.

Basically, cognitive aging is the brain’s version of your body parts working less efficiently due to age, rather than due to disease or serious damage.

This loss of efficiency is gradual. And like many other age-associated changes in the body, cognitive aging tends to happen a little differently for every person, in part due to things like genetics, lifestyle and environmental factors.

But it’s not a disease. Very importantly: cognitive aging doesn’t involve neurodegeneration or significant damage to the brain’s neurons.

So whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other conditions cause neurons to become badly damaged and eventually die, in a normal older person with cognitive aging, the brain’s neurons are basically ok, they’re just working less quickly and less well than earlier in life.

Quin_Dub

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah but if those on the left get the hump over Biden being an old school democrat and don't vote for him then they get four more years of trump. They'll be waiting a while for the perfect candidate so they need to get their heads out of the clouds and hold their noses if needs be. Biden to me is like you doing emergency stabilisation on a building that's in danger of collapsing while kamala Harris is the permanent fix from the issue. I'd say on social issues I'd be more left of centre(whatever scale you want to use) but at times those of the left are their own worst enemies.

Agreed , I think though that enough of them have learned their lesson after 2016.

hotmail.com

Biden said the election is a fight for "the soul of the American people" or words to that effect.

Is American politics completely mad?

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The neo-liberalism of Clinton and Obama which didn't stray very far from the Bush years.

The left in America have no voice. For a lot of them Bernie was a compromise. Bernie in Ireland would fit in with the Social Democrats yet in America he's viewed as a commie.

Ah stop. Seriously. Is this the time for that argument?

The likes of AOC and Bernie have influenced the Dems dramatically over the last few years and this can be seen with the policy changes that Biden is promoting.

Honestly, you'd prefer another 4 years of Trump, wouldn't you?

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Biden said the election is a fight for "the soul of the American people" or words to that effect.

Is American politics completely mad?

I would say it's entirely true at this. The last 4 years have divided the nation to a horrifying degree plus destroyed their position globally. Another 4 years and any potential of coming back from where they are is gone.

BonnieSituation

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed , I think though that enough of them have learned their lesson after 2016.

You'd think that, and yet the clamour of "Nothing ever changes" from them since the Harris announcement has been as predictable as it has been pathetic.

Quin_Dub

hotmail.com wrote: »

Biden said the election is a fight for "the soul of the American people" or words to that effect.

Is American politics completely mad?

Yes, without question - Completely and utterly insane.

But that doesn't make what Biden said wrong.

Four more years of Trump cutting taxes, deregulating everything and stacking the judiciary with unqualified shills for Big Business and/or Extremist Religious leaders could destroy America for the vast majority of it's citizens .

It's already one of the most unequal societies on earth , imagine what it would be like if it transitions into the complete Oligarchy that Trump and his cronies so crave?

Imagine being an average worked in that world??

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm simply quoting you. You said that

"We need to put any idea of Biden being in cognitive decline to bed."

Yet you've just admitted that it's normal for 70+ year olds to be in cognitive decline.

I'll quote myself as well, because I already made the point :-

You know as well as I do that when Biden's detractors speak of him being in cognitive decline, they're not saying it in the sense of him not being as sharp as when he was 30. No 70+ year old is, so that type of cognitive decline is a moot point in a presidential race where both major contestants are over that mark.

The insinuation is instead about being senile or having dementia such that he's not fit for office, and furthermore that this is being carefully stage-managed by the Democratic party.

It must be the insinuation because if you can level it at everyone above a certain age, and plenty of politicians above 60 or 70 hold political offices quite competently, then it's not really an argument or anything out of the ordinary or debilitating, unless you want to say that no-one over 70 can be president, which would of course disqualify Trump, and that's something Trump supporters are eager to dance their way around.

Cody montana

hotmail.com wrote: »

Biden said the election is a fight for "the soul of the American people" or words to that effect.

Is American politics completely mad?

He’s correct.

The USA has gone down the wrong path with Trump.
Division, denial and hate is not the way forward.

Ultimately the people will decide.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Ah stop. Seriously. Is this the time for that argument?

The likes of AOC and Bernie have influenced the Dems dramatically over the last few years and this can be seen with the policy changes that Biden is promoting.

Honestly, you'd prefer another 4 years of Trump, wouldn't you?

You're back to the 'lesser of two evils'.

Are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris better than Trump and Pence? Absolutely.

Are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris going to look after the everyday working man and woman? Absolutely not.

Take the bold part and shove it up your arse.

hotmail.com

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yes, without question - Completely and utterly insane.

But that doesn't make what Biden said wrong.

Four more years of Trump cutting taxes, deregulating everything and stacking the judiciary with unqualified shills for Big Business and/or Extremist Religious leaders could destroy America for the vast majority of it's citizens .

It's already one of the most unequal societies on earth , imagine what it would be like if it transitions into the complete Oligarchy that Trump and his cronies so crave?

Imagine being an average worked in that world??

I don't see any Democrat making much difference to income inequality there particularly Biden. He is closer to a Republican than to Sanders.

On the religion thing, America is a deeply religious country. For us they are but jobs, over there being religious isn't seen as mad.

Biden himself is an outwardly religious man. I presume Harris is also a church goer, although I'm not sure about that.

briany

briany wrote: »

I'll quote myself as well, because I already made the point :-



It must be the insinuation because if you can level it at everyone above a certain age, and plenty of politicians above 60 or 70 hold political offices quite competently, then it's not really an argument or anything out of the ordinary or debilitating, unless you want to say that no-one over 70 can be president, which would of course disqualify Trump, and that's something Trump supporters are eager to dance their way around.

Who said that everyone above 70 is in cognitive decline?

correct horse battery staple

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You can not be serious? 160+ thousand of everyday men and women have died (thats double the Vietnam war, a 9/11 every day or so) under Trump


most of those deaths would have been preventable if they had "normal" politicians and not Trump...

Most of those people would still be alive if they had Medicare for All. Something Joe Biden is vehemently against.

Don't try outflank me on Covid19, it won't end well for you.

correct horse battery staple

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So do tell us about Trumps position and attempts to kill public healtcare in US, go on



What are you going to do cough at me? Shoot me with an automatic military grade rifle?

Why are you asking me about Trump?

correct horse battery staple

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Because he has been the "President" for the last 3 years running the country into the ground? Because the thread is about Trump??

Because i hate hypocrites?

Who's a hypocrite?

hotmail.com

Cody montana wrote: »

He’s correct.

The USA has gone down the wrong path with Trump.
Division, denial and hate is not the way forward.

Ultimately the people will decide.

I'm just getting at the cringeworthy and ridiculous language Americans use in their speeches.

Cody montana

Cody montana wrote: »

He’s correct.

The USA has gone down the wrong path with Trump.
Division, denial and hate is not the way forward.

Ultimately the people will decide.

The USA has been going down the wrong path for decades. It is this path that led to Trump.